TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (for brevity 'the Rules') by M/s. Marmo Stone Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity 'Applicant') through its director Mr. Rajesh Jindal, authorizing him to file present application vide Board resolution dated 29.05.2018, with a prayer to initiate the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Glow Softech Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity 'Respondent'). 2. The Applicant, namely M/s Marmo Stone Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 with CIN No. U51900DL2013PTC252564, having its registered office at A-35, Second Floor, Main Road, agat Puri, Delhi-110051. 3. The Respondent, namely M/s Glow Softech Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated on 15.02.2018 u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that in lieu of the above mentioned supply of goods/ materials the respondent had made certain part payments, the details are listed below: Sl.No. DATE OF PAYMENT PAYMENT AMOUNT MODE OF PAYMENT 1. 16.06.2017 Rs. 20,00,000/- RTGS 2. 22.06.2017 Rs. 20,00,000/- RTGS 3. 11.07.2017 Rs. 20,00,000/- RTGS 4. 17.07.2017 Rs. 60,00,000/- - A balance of Rs. 38,92,229/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Nine Only), still remained unpaid by the respondent. 7. In spite of various requests made and reminders sent by the Applicant, the respondent did not reply. 8. On failure to pay the outstanding dues by the Respondent, the applicant sent a demand notice dated 20.04.2018 under Section 8 of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claims that it was discovered that the contractor appointed by the Respondent in connivance with the applicant defrauded the respondent. The respondent also placed before the bench the details of the case filed by it against the contractor, which is currently pending adjudication in the court of Ld. CMM, Karkardooma, bearing C.C No. 4229/2017. 12. It has been observed by this bench that the above stated suit has been filed by the respondent against its contractor DPS Rathor and not against the applicant in the present application. Hence, it is made clear, the said suit in the court of Ld. CMM, Karkardooma, cannot be said to be a pre-existing dispute. 13. In rejoinder of the applicant dated 23.08.2018, the submissions made in the applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the "dispute" is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence. It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defense which is mere bluster. However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defense is likely to succeed. The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application." In the present case, there is no such dispute as pre-existing, albeit a hypothetical or illusory dispute has been raised by the 'Corporate Debtor' and the same appears ....